10) The six million number would include all the victims not only those that have been gased.

Of course, we can't forget them.
Ever since the gas chamber storys began coming apart, more and more of the fabled six million dead jews started transforming into victims of Eisengruppen field executions.
Gotta keep the story flowing nice and smooth, there is a lot at stake.
Remember, that magical six million number is necessary to justify the illegal return and take over of Palestine.
A prophesy had been fulfilled.
That's why they were crying over the magical six million figure so many times prior to WW2.
Funny how mainstream history fails to mention all the other times six million jews were in peril.
Why is that?

__________________

Liberal hypocrites say Whites can't take credit for the work our ancestors did because someone else did it.
At the same time they insist that Negros deserve to be paid reparations for the work someone else did.

4. And I'm a Chemist too! -- Express a series of doubts and claims about the properties of Zyklon-B, the gas used to kill people in Auschwitz gas chambers. For example, claim that Zyklon-B is not an ideal agent for mass gassing, and therefore the Nazis shouldn't have used it and thus they *didn't* use it.

Even better, claim that they *couldn't* have used it because the gas lingering in the chamber after the murders would have killed anyone trying to enter the chambers to remove the corpses. When someone explains to you (countless times) that some of the gas chambers had powerful ventilation systems to remove the gas and in other cases people entering wore gas masks, argue that despite the ventilation there would still somehow be enough residual gas in the chambers to kill people.

Keep waving a DuPont brochure around in an attempt to ward off those who know more about chemistry than you do. Also claim that ventilating the gas would cause problems to individuals downwind. When someone explains to you that the gas is lighter than air, just quietly go away for awhile or change the subject or complain about a mean word they may have used.

It's not unusual that the ones who claim to be "rational skeptics" are the most fanatical guys you can meet. Incidentally, if Zyklon-B was used for gassing jews, can you provide us with a forensic study that supports the fact that a jew was gassed with Zyklon-B? Given that many of them were murdered with that gas you must have some basic evidence of this.

And what do you think about the debate between Germar Rudolf and Richard Green?:

The fact that Rudolf ignores the central arguments of our article while nitpicking at a few minor points reinforces the idea that he is engaging in the strategy of attrition. Since he has had the last word, he must be correct, even though he never bothered to represent the arguments in the article correctly. Lack of response on our part to subsequent polemics by Rudolf should not be interpreted as aquiescence, but rather as a refusal to play the game of the battle of attrition.

I think he is omitting many of Rudolf's arguments. He just keeps repeating himself. This isn't the expected way for discussing an argument from a 'rational' person, is it?

The really astonishing and pathetic part, "Brett," is that you managed to drone on for that long without putting in a single shred of proof for the views you hold. And I'm betting you didn't even notice.

The Holocaust industry is big $$$, got to keep the shekels coming in. Got to make the Germans who werent even born, pay back a debt shouldnt be owed. Just the fact you made a holocaust memorial museum and put it in the captiol of the USA is all the proof I need to know the holocaust is just another jewish scam to milk the cattle.

1. Creamed Mush with Fog Sauce -- Never provide evidence for your assertions. In fact, respond to demands for evidence the way Dracula responds to crucifixes. Do anything you can to avoid it. Throw insults. Change the subject. Obfuscate. Laugh derisively. Claim you already gave the evidence or that someone else did. But never provide any evidence yourself (unless you provide an incomplete or incomprehensible citation along with it).

As another person said in this thread, this is exactly the tricks usually used by Holohoax promoters and Holocaust believers.

Quote:

2. Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose -- Demand that all evidence for the Holocaust be proved genuine (dodging any discussion of what that proof would consist of), and also demand that all your unsubstantiated assertions be proved false. That way, you never bear any burden of proof. (originally posted by Mike Stein)

With the high number of holo-forgeries produced through decades, it seems to demand that evidence for the Holocaust be proved genuine. It's useless to talk about something before being certain it's genuine. The revisionist Carlos Whitlock Porter explained this as follows: "To me, engaging in complicated arguments about the "content" of apocryphal documents is putting the cart before the horse. To me, the first question is, is it an original? What kind of document is it? Where did the copy come from? What kind of copy is it? And so on. Then we'll argue about what they say."

To me, it looks like a pretty normal method of historical research.

Quote:

3. Hello, I'm a Cremation Expert -- Claim that the 52 Auschwitz furnaces could not have had the capacity to burn 4,756 corpses per day because modern commercial crematoriums don't have such a capacity. When its pointed out to you that there's no comparison between ordinary commercial crematoriums and those built in the camps, for a variety of reasons -- e.g. coffins were not used, one can cremate more than one corpse in a single retort, etc. -- ignore this and repeat the claim.

Of course, the 52 Auschwitz furnaces couldn't have cremated 4,756 corpses per day. Just look at those furnaces. They were just normal crematory ovens of the 1940's and a forged document can change that fact. And putting more than one single corpse in a single retort won't change anything. It will only make the cremation time longer.

And assuming the 52 Auschwitz furnaces could cremate around 5,000 corpses per day, it would still have left 7,000 corpses not cremated during the alleged extermination climax (12,000 gassed every day). Where were those bodies stored? Not in morgues as the morgues were supposed to be gas chambers and undressing rooms. Not oudooor as the Allied photographs would show such mountains of dead bodies and they don't. So where?

Quote:

4. And I'm a Chemist too! -- Express a series of doubts and claims about the properties of Zyklon-B, the gas used to kill people in Auschwitz gas chambers. For example, claim that Zyklon-B is not an ideal agent for mass gassing, and therefore the Nazis shouldn't have used it and thus they *didn't* use it.

Claiming the Nazis would have operated mass gassings as described is nonsense. They had sophisticated, efficient and safe gassing machine to delouse clothes, but we are supposed to believe they found nothing better than holes in roofs and wire mesh columns when they allegedly decided to gas Jews on an industrial scale. Really? Why not claiming they used bows and arrows, not guns and tanks, when they invaded the Soviet Union, while we are in nonsenses? That would be the same thing as the farcical "Holocaust gas chambers".

Quote:

Even better, claim that they *couldn't* have used it because the gas lingering in the chamber after the murders would have killed anyone trying to enter the chambers to remove the corpses. When someone explains to you (countless times) that some of the gas chambers had powerful ventilation systems to remove the gas and in other cases people entering wore gas masks, argue that despite the ventilation there would still somehow be enough residual gas in the chambers to kill people.

Keep waving a DuPont brochure around in an attempt to ward off those who know more about chemistry than you do. Also claim that ventilating the gas would cause problems to individuals downwind. When someone explains to you that the gas is lighter than air, just quietly go away for awhile or change the subject or complain about a mean word they may have used.

Yes, cyanide gas is lighter than air. That's why the ventilation of the "gas chambers" pumped poisoned air out of the "gas chamber" at the bottom of the room and pumped fresh air in the "gas chamber" at the top of the room. Even Pressac admitted that was a reversed design for gas chambers. That design made perfect sense only to ventilate cold heavy decomposition gases floating just above the ground of the morgue, not to ventilate hot light poison gas floating in the higher part of the room.

Quote:

5. Sticks and Stones -- If you're being wiped out with evidence and reasoning you cannot refute, you can always take refuge in complaining about the language being used by your adversaries. For example, if they say, "I've already explained that it takes less gas to kill people than lice, and therefore there are fewer cyanide residues remaining on the gas chamber walls than on the delousing chamber walls, you moron," you can respond by complaining about their use of the word "moron."

You can actually evade quite a bit of serious discussion by spending a lot of time condescendingly lecturing the newsgroup about their use of trashy language. But this approach doesn't work very well in building credibility. You may view yourself as an arbiter of social discourse but you'll actually come off like a den-mother scurrying around excoriating the little Cub Scouts to behave themselves.

For my own personal experience, Holohoax promoters are the ones who use belittling words as "moron" and "conspiracy theorist" very often, not the other way round.

"I've already explained that it takes less gas to kill people than lice, and therefore there are fewer cyanide residues remaining on the gas chamber walls than on the delousing chamber walls"

6. Oh Sorry, I Ate the Last One -- Claim that Jews and other prisoners were not intentionally starved, that they were victims of food shortages just like everybody else. When it is pointed out that neither the camp guards nor people living in the vicinity of the camps starved to death, just claim that this does not prove there was an intentional starvation policy, and that if there is no piece of paper with a written order to starve people, then no starvation occurred.

As the emaciated inmates filmed and photographed by the Allies were mainly the result of typhus epidemics (that's why the British burned Belsen down after bulldozing the typhic corpses into mass graves), and not of starvation, it's not really a matter of debate. But with anti-typhus vaccine and DDT, the Allies could act as if typhus was a non-issue (it was for them, but it wasn't so for the Germans, especially when Germany was collapsing) and claim the emaciated inmates found in the last German concentration camps (especially Belsen) were the result of an alleged starvation policy. Quickly understanding the advantage of that chaos for atrocity propaganda, British propagandists soon stopped to talk about the typhus epidemics of the Belsen "Black Hole" and opted for the starvation canard (https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t917003/#post10634931).

Quote:

7. The "What's It Mean?" Spiral of Infinity -- Try to keep your opponents off balance by constantly shifting or questioning the definitions of words. For example, if your opponent states that historians generally agree that 1 million Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz during the Holocaust, you can ask, what do you mean by "historian" or what do you mean by "Jew" or what do you mean by "agree?"

Alternatively, when confronted with the evidence that Himmler called for the "ausrotten" of the Jews, argue that ausrotten doesn't really mean extermination. When proof of that definition is provided by German dictionaries and German speakers on the newsgroup, just ignore it.

TODAY's German dictionaries and speakers. The meaning of words evolves through time. New meanings appear and old meaning disappear. That's how languages work. For instance, antisemitic French newspapers of that time also used the words "exterminate the Jews" in connection with an expulsion Policy (https://shoabloger.wordpress.com/201...g-of-the-word/), even if any French guy of today will tell you that "exterminate" only means "kill to the last one".

Ex = Out
Terminus = Border

Quote:

8. Now You See It, Now You Don't -- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because they are not still standing. Of course, by this logic, the Mayflower, Carthage, Jimmy Hoffa, and large portions of the Great Wall never existed. When this is pointed out to you, ignore it.

Countries and historians didn't show a replica of the May Flower and claimed it was the real May Flower in its original state. Holohoax promoters did that with the "gas chambers" for tourists at Auschwitz 1. Soviet propagandists also did that at Sachsenhausen before dynamiting that "gas chambers" themselves in the 1950's because it was too obviously a fraud. American and post-war German propagandists filmed and displayed a "gas chamber" at Dachau, where millions of Jews had allegedly been killed...before admitting the Dachau "gas chamber" had in fact never been used as a gas chamber.

This sign was inside the Dachau "gas chamber" from May 1965 to May 2003

View of the Dachau "gas chamber" in May 2001 (sign on the right)

If people had done a similar thing with a fake May Flower (a replica), it would have been legitimate to question the existence of the May Flower itself.

Quote:

9. Kafka Was Here -- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because there are no photos or drawings of them. When you are presented with photos and drawings, state that they could not possibly be actual photos/drawings of gas chambers because the gas chambers never existed because there are no photos/drawings of them because they never existed because . . .

Kafka is on the side of Holohoax promoters. They claim that the Nazis destroyed all evidence of their alleged gas chambers and they also claim that there exist mountains of evidence of the Nazi gas chambers, so the existence of the Nazi gas chambers can't be denied and only crazy conspiracy theorists do that.

Quote:

10. Fun With Math -- Charge the anti-revisionists with playing numbers games while engaging in them yourself. For example, argue that the "holohoaxers" have changed the estimated number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million. When it's pointed out to you that the 4 million figure was supplied by the Soviets and refers to the total number of victims, not just Jews, and has always been considered ridiculously inflated by non-Soviet historians who have never varied from the 1 million figure for Jews, just repeat that the holohaoxers have changed the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million and that the Holocaust is therefore a hoax.

The point of this tactic, of course, is to try to make ALL the death figures questionable. If 4 million is unreliable, then 1 million is likewise unreliable, and you just keep revising the numbers downward until you reach zero, and then - poof! - no Holocaust!

Don't forget the death toll of Majdanek, the second most murderous Nazi "death camp" at Nuremberg, officially falling from 1.5 million (or even 1.7 million according to Deborah Lipstadt) to 78,000 (less than 60,000 Jews) (see the anti-revisionist Tomasz Kranz for this).

Quote:

11. The Great Leap -- This tactic goes like this: If one piece of testimony about the Holocaust seems unreliable, then ALL testimony about the Holocaust is unreliable. If one Holocaust witness may have recanted something on the stand, then all other Holocaust witnesses are liars. If some camp prisoners did not starve to death, then NONE of them starved to death. etc. But be careful. This is a double-edged sword -- someone may use the well-documented lies of other revisionists to conclude that YOU are a liar as well.

If testimonies are reliable, even if numerous, why don't you believe in alien abductions, witches, apparitions of Virgin Mary, elves & trolls, bigfoots, Nessie, ghosts, etc? There are very numerous testimonies about those things.

And if testimonial evidence is reliable, why are there confessions and testimonies about gassings in camps where it is now admitted by ALL that no homicidal gassings took place?

"I believe that through this trial all thinking people will come to realize that in our day the gas chamber and the soap factory are what anti-Semitism may lead to." - Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, December 1960 (http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blog ... 2380a36b30)

12. But I'm Not Anti-Semitic -- Try to find examples of misdeeds by an individual Jewish person, then imply that this makes all Jews look bad. When you are asked why you think one Jew represents all Jews but that one Christian doesn't represent all Christians, ignore the question.

Yes, I am. But that doesn't imply that I'm a liar or an idiot.

Quote:

13. Grab Bag of Idiocy -- Here are a few quick claims you can easily make, although be forewarned that they will immediately make you look like an imbecile: a) Claim that "the Jews" declared war on Hitler (whatever that means), and that anything he did to them was an act of self-defense;

"We are not denying and are not afraid to confess that this war is our war and that it is waged for the liberation of Jewry." - Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Zionist Organization, Head of the Jewish Agency and later first President of Israel, in a Speech on December 3, 1942, in New York.

- What happened exactly one week before the boycott of Jewish shops in Germany (which lasted for only one day)? American Jewish organizations promoting a world boycott on German products.

- Why were Europe's Jews forced to wear a yellow star on their clothes? To be clearly identified as Jews and as enemies of the German state at war. And why such a measure? Because an American Jew had just written and published a book called "Germany Must Perish!", promoting the total annihilation of the German people after Allied victory.

Quote:

b) With absolutely zero supporting evidence, claim that the corpses in the Auschwitz furnaces would have exploded, damaging the furnaces and thereby bringing the corpse cremation figures into question;

Never heard such a thing.

Quote:

c) Argue that because the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC has a small model of a gas chamber and not a full-scale model, this somehow proves that gas chambers did not exist during WWII;

Who claimed that?

Quote:

d) Argue that the existence of a brothel in Auschwitz means there could not have been gas chambers there.

A brothel, a library, a theater, a swimming pool, a soccer field, etc. All kinds of things that one would not expect to find in Dante's inferno as Auschwitz was supposed to be.

Quote:

14. If you don't want to look like a total buffoon, there's always the pseudo-academic, above-the-fray approach. With a huge dose of arrogance and superiority, explain that you are neither a revisionist nor any other "label", merely someone with a healthy skepticism about everything, including Holocaust history (ALL of it), and that you are conducting your own research to determine for yourself whether certain Holocaust incidents actually took place. Pretend to be totally impartial (despite the avalanche of Holocaust evidence you would encounter the minute you actually began any legitimate research), but in your posts only question the Holocaust historians' statements, not revisionists' statements.

Arrogance and superiority don't lack in the ranks of Holohoax promoters. Believe me.

Quote:

16. As for the motive behind the Holocaust "hoax", claim that the Holocaust was invented near the end of WWII by people who foresaw the establishment of the state of Israel, and also foresaw that Israel would face years of conflict with its neighbors, and also foresaw the consequent need for U.S. military and financial aid to Israel, and also foresaw possible public opposition to such aid, and so they invented a huge hoax with thousands of phony witnesses and documents so that those who might oppose the aid to Israel would feel sorry for Jews and wouldn't oppose the aid. When someone points out to you that this is sheer idiocy and that acts of genocide do not automatically turn on the aid spigot to the victims, ignore them.

Oh no, the Holohoax wasn't invented at the end of WW2. It was invented much sooner.

"There are 6 million living, bleeding, suffering, arguments in favor of Zionism."
- Rabbi Stephen Wise, prominent Zionist, in 1900, 'informed' the world about the "Holocaust" in 1942 as a member of the World Jewish Congress

"How dare the smooth talkers, the clever official blabbers, open their mouths and boast of progress. ... Here they hold jubilant peace conferences in which they talk against war. ... But the same righteous Governments, who are so nobly, industriously active to establish the eternal peace, are preparing, by their own confession, complete annihilation for six million people, and there is nobody, except the doomed themselves, to raise his voice in protest although this is a worse crime than any war ..."
- Max Nordau, co-founder of the World Zionist Organization with Herzl, 1911, Zionist Congress

17. Although all of your arguments will be consistently blown to smithereens, just wait a few days or weeks and then re-post them.

...or change your narrative every two weeks when your lies are debunked as Holohoax promoters have constantly done during the last 70 years.

Quote:

18. After all, you're fighting for the truth (as you'd like it to be).

That's why you need laws and different kinds of pressure to keep your 'truth' alive...

__________________

« Meanwhile, the war against the Soviet Union has allowed us to dispose of new territories for the final solution. Consequently, the Führer has decided to displace the Jews not towards Madagascar but towards the East. Thus, there is no longer any need to consider Madagascar for the final solution. »

- Franz Rademacher, Feb. 10th 1942, Nuremberg Doc. NG-3933

« Revisionists are just the messengers, the stupid impossibility of the 'Holocaust' story line is the message.»

"I believe that through this trial all thinking people will come to realize that in our day the gas chamber and the soap factory are what anti-Semitism may lead to." - Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, December 1960 (http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blog ... 2380a36b30)

They always believed that the soap storys were made up?

Quote:

The Nazi's did however use skin and hair of humans to make various products, said Krakoski.

The lampshade storys were made up.
The alleged human skin lampshades were made of animal skin.
That means holocaust scammers not only went through the arduous task of constructing false evidence to present at a criminal trial where people were going to be sentenced to death, they even went to the trouble of inking the skin with tattoos to make them appear even more realistic
This is just an example of how far they will go to try to convince the public of a big lie.
Inmates had their heads shaved when they entered the camps as a precaution to curb the spread of Typhus.
The hair was shaved off to get rid of lice carrying the disease.
The use of hair in various products in those days was common practice around the world.
Shaving someones head is not fatal.
The fable gets a little jumbled when it comes to the head shaving part of the story.
They don't know if they were shaved before or after they were gassed with the bug poison.
In some eye witness accounts the witnesses lamented over the gruesome details of how they entered the gas chamber after the horrifying conclusion to the jewish problem to shave the heads of the corpses.
It was a lie.
That story disappeared from the media faster than Black on White crime.

The huge amount of falsified evidence is what really places the jewish holocaust in the light of day and exposes it for the fraud that it is.
When the police are investigating a crime what they do is separate the witnesses and the suspects and interrogate them.
If their story's conflict with each other then they know that they are lying.
If the suspects are all agreed on a certain detail and are very specific with even the most minute detail it is indicative of a rehearsed story.
The holocaust has all of these and very little else.
So you have to ask yourself, who has the most to gain from this story?

"Hey lurkers! After browsing through alt.revisionism posts for awhile, you may already have figured out how to become a Holocaust revisionist. It's easy. For those of you considering such a move, be assured that it requires no preparation or scholarly research. Simply follow the guidelines below, as the revisionists on this newsgroup have done, and you'll quickly be on the road to deluding yourself that someone out there takes you seriously, and that you are valiantly fighting the evil forces of some undefined, implausible conspiracy.

1. Creamed Mush with Fog Sauce -- Never provide evidence for your assertions. In fact, respond to demands for evidence the way Dracula responds to crucifixes. Do anything you can to avoid it. Throw insults. Change the subject. Obfuscate. Laugh derisively. Claim you already gave the evidence or that someone else did. But never provide any evidence yourself (unless you provide an incomplete or incomprehensible citation along with it).

2. Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose -- Demand that all evidence for the Holocaust be proved genuine (dodging any discussion of what that proof would consist of), and also demand that all your unsubstantiated assertions be proved false. That way, you never bear any burden of proof. (originally posted by Mike Stein)

Demands we conform to your criteria?
All I'm saying is that your arguments are implausible.
I don't have to provide evidence that the Tooth-fairy is fictional... if you believe in the Tooth fairy, you have to provide plausible evidence.

Quote:

3. Hello, I'm a Cremation Expert -- Claim that the 52 Auschwitz furnaces could not have had the capacity to burn 4,756 corpses per day because modern commercial crematoriums don't have such a capacity. When its pointed out to you that there's no comparison between ordinary commercial crematoriums and those built in the camps, for a variety of reasons -- e.g. coffins were not used, one can cremate more than one corpse in a single retort, etc. -- ignore this and repeat the claim.

See film above.

Quote:

4. And I'm a Chemist too! -- Express a series of doubts and claims about the properties of Zyklon-B, the gas used to kill people in Auschwitz gas chambers. For example, claim that Zyklon-B is not an ideal agent for mass gassing, and therefore the Nazis shouldn't have used it and thus they *didn't* use it.

Zyklon B was a pesticide agent against Lice.
Where are the stains of Prussian Blue on the wall?
I'm no Chemist, but apparently this stuff leave a stain.

Quote:

Even better, claim that they *couldn't* have used it because the gas lingering in the chamber after the murders would have killed anyone trying to enter the chambers to remove the corpses. When someone explains to you (countless times) that some of the gas chambers had powerful ventilation systems to remove the gas and in other cases people entering wore gas masks, argue that despite the ventilation there would still somehow be enough residual gas in the chambers to kill people.

Watch the film.
Your emotional hysterics are not scientific.
How many people were jammed in that basement?
Why were the Crematoria a floor above the delousing chambers if they were extermination chambers?

Quote:

Keep waving a DuPont brochure around in an attempt to ward off those who know more about chemistry than you do. Also claim that ventilating the gas would cause problems to individuals downwind. When someone explains to you that the gas is lighter than air, just quietly go away for awhile or change the subject or complain about a mean word they may have used.

If you are so certain you have all the facts... why the secretive and criminalising attempts to sweep the debate under the carpet?

Quote:

5. Sticks and Stones -- If you're being wiped out with evidence and reasoning you cannot refute, you can always take refuge in complaining about the language being used by your adversaries. For example, if they say, "I've already explained that it takes less gas to kill people than lice, and therefore there are fewer cyanide residues remaining on the gas chamber walls than on the delousing chamber walls, you moron," you can respond by complaining about their use of the word "moron."

Tittle tattle.
No evidence, no sale.
Watch the film ... then get back to us.

Quote:

You can actually evade quite a bit of serious discussion by spending a lot of time condescendingly lecturing the newsgroup about their use of trashy language. But this approach doesn't work very well in building credibility. You may view yourself as an arbiter of social discourse but you'll actually come off like a den-mother scurrying around excoriating the little Cub Scouts to behave themselves.

Maybe that means something to you... but lost on me.
If you cannot prove conclusively that any deed occured that you refer to as "Holocaust"... I'm afraid all "Holocaust" means is Fairy Tale.

Quote:

6. Oh Sorry, I Ate the Last One -- Claim that Jews and other prisoners were not intentionally starved, that they were victims of food shortages just like everybody else. When it is pointed out that neither the camp guards nor people living in the vicinity of the camps starved to death, just claim that this does not prove there was an intentional starvation policy, and that if there is no piece of paper with a written order to starve people, then no starvation occurred.

You forgot the Typhoid.
Medicine was also cut by allied bombing.

Quote:

7. The "What's It Mean?" Spiral of Infinity -- Try to keep your opponents off balance by constantly shifting or questioning the definitions of words. For example, if your opponent states that historians generally agree that 1 million Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz during the Holocaust, you can ask, what do you mean by "historian" or what do you mean by "Jew" or what do you mean by "agree?"

I have never seen such flimsy arguments being used.
Provide a link.
The Soviets concocted many of the tales used to demonise Germany.

You will be telling us that Elie Weisels book "Night" was an accurate reflection of camp life.
You will be telling us that you can see little Elie, nestled in his bunk at Birkenau... or was it Auschwitz, even Elie can't remember that clearly... never mind he looks nothing like Elie.

Quote:

Alternatively, when confronted with the evidence that Himmler called for the "ausrotten" of the Jews, argue that ausrotten doesn't really mean extermination. When proof of that definition is provided by German dictionaries and German speakers on the newsgroup, just ignore it.

There are plenty of people in Europe today who would happily see Islam Ausrotten, whether that means Gas Chambers is another matter, and totally speculative.

Quote:

8. Now You See It, Now You Don't -- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because they are not still standing. Of course, by this logic, the Mayflower, Carthage, Jimmy Hoffa, and large portions of the Great Wall never existed. When this is pointed out to you, ignore it.

I suggest you watch the film posted above.
See whether your Gas Chambers stand up to scrutiny.
You would have us "Believe" implausible tales, just because of your whining?

Quote:

9. Kafka Was Here -- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because there are no photos or drawings of them. When you are presented with photos and drawings, state that they could not possibly be actual photos/drawings of gas chambers because the gas chambers never existed because there are no photos/drawings of them because they never existed because . . .

You will see in the film, posted above that the architectural drawings mention Leichen Kammer... under ground, to stay cool.
Not Gas Kammer.
Strange huh.

Quote:

10. Fun With Math -- Charge the anti-revisionists with playing numbers games while engaging in them yourself. For example, argue that the "holohoaxers" have changed the estimated number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million. When it's pointed out to you that the 4 million figure was supplied by the Soviets and refers to the total number of victims, not just Jews, and has always been considered ridiculously inflated by non-Soviet historians who have never varied from the 1 million figure for Jews, just repeat that the holohaoxers have changed the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million and that the Holocaust is therefore a hoax.

Never mind you can be a "Holocaust Survivor" if you survived the war as a jew in Acapulco, or a two year old in Montreal...

Quote:

The point of this tactic, of course, is to try to make ALL the death figures questionable. If 4 million is unreliable, then 1 million is likewise unreliable, and you just keep revising the numbers downward until you reach zero, and then - poof! - no Holocaust!

Paranoia.
Just open the debate and we will see what is genuine and what is fake.
The longer you leave it the more the evidence is degraded, and ultimately worthless.
The Tale is slipping out of your hands.
All you have left is draconian laws and beliefs.
A witch hunt.

Quote:

11. The Great Leap -- This tactic goes like this: If one piece of testimony about the Holocaust seems unreliable, then ALL testimony about the Holocaust is unreliable. If one Holocaust witness may have recanted something on the stand, then all other Holocaust witnesses are liars. If some camp prisoners did not starve to death, then NONE of them starved to death. etc. But be careful. This is a double-edged sword -- someone may use the well-documented lies of other revisionists to conclude that YOU are a liar as well.

You mean like Anne Frank who spent the war in an Attic in Amsterdam... complete with a Vacuum cleaner?
Do you have any idea how rare a Vacuum cleaner was, and how noisy they were at the time?
Never mind the tale was partially written in Biro.

Quote:

12. But I'm Not Anti-Semitic -- Try to find examples of misdeeds by an individual Jewish person, then imply that this makes all Jews look bad. When you are asked why you think one Jew represents all Jews but that one Christian doesn't represent all Christians, ignore the question.

What?
Judaism is full of anti social and barbaric acts and rituals.
Genital mutilation, kosher slaughter...
These are not individual peculiarities, but enshrined in judaic lore.
Wan to address Kol Nidre?
The spell that absolves the jew of all lies and oaths uttered that year?

Quote:

13. Grab Bag of Idiocy -- Here are a few quick claims you can easily make, although be forewarned that they will immediately make you look like an imbecile: a) Claim that "the Jews" declared war on Hitler (whatever that means), and that anything he did to them was an act of self-defense; b) With absolutely zero supporting evidence, claim that the corpses in the Auschwitz furnaces would have exploded, damaging the furnaces and thereby bringing the corpse cremation figures into question; c) Argue that because the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC has a small model of a gas chamber and not a full-scale model, this somehow proves that gas chambers did not exist during WWII; d) Argue that the existence of a brothel in Auschwitz means there could not have been gas chambers there.

You are the "Grab Bag of Idiocy"...

The date is 1933.
What can I say... you made a false assertion... there is supporting evidence.

Quote:

14. If you don't want to look like a total buffoon, there's always the pseudo-academic, above-the-fray approach. With a huge dose of arrogance and superiority, explain that you are neither a revisionist nor any other "label", merely someone with a healthy skepticism about everything, including Holocaust history (ALL of it), and that you are conducting your own research to determine for yourself whether certain Holocaust incidents actually took place. Pretend to be totally impartial (despite the avalanche of Holocaust evidence you would encounter the minute you actually began any legitimate research), but in your posts only question the Holocaust historians' statements, not revisionists' statements.

It is the Kosher court historians who are questionable.
The revisionists have not had their research seriously investigated... and therefore you are asking us to accept your pronouncements as writ.
Basically asking us to accept your version of events on trust.
That may work with Children, but grown ups need more substacial evidence other than threats and insults.

Quote:

15. Alternatively claim that: a) the Jews in the camps died as a result of allied bombing; b) the Jews weren't killed in the camps but were sent to Russia; and c) the Jews never even went to the camps because the railroad capacity was insufficient. When someone points out that these are mutually exclusive, and that it would be a neat trick for allied bombs in 1944 to result in the deaths of Jews in 1942, ignore it.

The carpet bombing was certainly one of the factors.
Maybe you would like to explain where much of Germany's war material was coming from if not work camps.
Auschwitz was part of IG Farben.
An industrial company involved in manufacture.

Quote:

16. As for the motive behind the Holocaust "hoax", claim that the Holocaust was invented near the end of WWII by people who foresaw the establishment of the state of Israel, and also foresaw that Israel would face years of conflict with its neighbors, and also foresaw the consequent need for U.S. military and financial aid to Israel, and also foresaw possible public opposition to such aid, and so they invented a huge hoax with thousands of phony witnesses and documents so that those who might oppose the aid to Israel would feel sorry for Jews and wouldn't oppose the aid. When someone points out to you that this is sheer idiocy and that acts of genocide do not automatically turn on the aid spigot to the victims, ignore them.

You are talking about "Victims" with an extremely sophisticated PR system and control of Finance and Political policy.
It is the device used in Blackmailing the Christian European west into subservience to judaic lore.

Quote:

17. Although all of your arguments will be consistently blown to smithereens, just wait a few days or weeks and then re-post them.

You are running out of points.
Watch the film.

Quote:

18. Remember that the revisionist community is peopled mainly by racists, white-supremacists, Israel-bashers, and Nazis. This means that everyone except these kinds of people will dismiss you. But don't let that stop you. Don't let your Fellini-esque, internally inconsistent, un-researched, hypocritical distortions and lies prevent you from continuing to post. After all, you're fighting for the truth (as you'd like it to be).

"Fellini-esque"!
That is funny.
Truth as you would like it to be more like.
You need millions to have died... the same 6million who died twenty years before the war started...the same 6million who died before that...
The jews have a fixation on the number six... some kind of Kabbalist Magic number.
We don't buy it.
You can huff and puff as much as you like.

Quote:

Any similarities with debating creationists are purely coincidental..."

I wouldn't know.
I don't bother talking to creationists.
You are the ones asking us to subscribe to myths.

Oy,.. So here I am crying my eyes out and low and behold a holocaustic miracle has happened!
Every single time I pull a tissue out of my tissue box another one magically appears in it's place!
It's a miracle I tell ya,..a miracle!!!
There must be at least six million tissues in the box!